Citation Nr: 21066066 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-40 458 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease is REMANDED. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II is REMANDED. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1970 to December 1971. Upon review of the record, the Board concludes that further evidentiary development is necessary. Although the Board sincerely regrets this delay, and is appreciative of the Veteran's service to his country, a remand is necessary to ensure VA provides the Veteran with appropriate assistance in developing his claims prior to final adjudication. Entitlement to service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, Type II is remanded. In January 2013, a VA Form 21-526 was associated with the claims file. Therein, the Veteran initiated claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, Type II, both due to exposure to Agent Orange. In order to establish service connection for the claimed disorder on a direct basis, generally there must be probative evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). In each case where service connection for any disability is sought, due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service as shown by the Veteran's service record, the official history of each organization in which the Veteran served, the Veteran's medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). The diseases for which presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure is available include Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes) and ischemic heart disease. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). In January 2013, the Veteran's certificate of release or discharge from active duty (DD214) was associated with his claims file. Within the Veteran's DD214, no service in the Republic of Vietnam was noted. However, the Veteran had nearly fourteen months of active duty service in USARPAC as a vehicle driver (64C30, Truckmaster). In December 2013, the Veteran's treatment records from the Saint John Medical Center were associated with the claims file. Therein, a prior history for ischemic heart disease was noted. A probable / possible diagnosis for diabetes mellitus, Type II, was also noted, but the current status was listed as "uncertain" at beginning of the claim period. In March 2014, an article was associated with the claims file. Therein, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) identifies numerous units that encountered exposure to herbicide agents while stationed within Korea. Importantly, multiple units in the 7th Infantry Division were identified, to include the 1st Battalion of the 31st Infantry Regiment. In December 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans' Law Judge (VLJ). During his testimony, the Veteran identified the motor pool at Camp Casey as his assignment location while stationed in Korea. The Veteran relayed that, "I believe I was exposed (to Agent Orange) by several trips to the DMZ area for field exercises and delivering supplies for different companies from the first and 31st artillery that I was assigned to." The Veteran testified that, during that assignment period, he made 3 to 4 supply runs to the DMZ. On those occasions, the Veteran testified that he would unload the supplies, stay all night, and travel back to his assigned base the next day. The Veteran testified that, during the DMZ supply delivery trips, he and fellow soldiers would stayed in foxholes for eight to ten hours, guarding the rockets that were delivered. In December 2017, a VA Form 21-4138 was associated with claims file. Therein, a fellow soldier supplied a statement. The SGT relayed he also worked in the motor pool with the Veteran at Camp Casey. The SGT identifies HHB 1/31st Artillery as his assigned unit. The SGT posited that, "our unit was stationed at Camp Casey and we made many rotations to the DMZ. . . . At times, we dug fox holes and stayed in them to guard the area, therefore we were in direct contact with the soil . . .." In May 2018, the Board addressed the claims for service connection listed on the title page. At that time, the Board found that he Veteran's area(s) of operation, and duties during his period of service in the Pacific, must be clearly (or more clearly) identified. The Board remanded the claims to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for the requisite development. In June 2018, a VA Form 21-4138 was associated with the claims file. Therein, a fellow Soldier relayed that he met and spoke with the Veteran while stationed at Camp Casey, Korea. The fellow soldier relayed that the meeting in Korea was a surprise encounter, because they were from the same hometown. In July 2021, a Records Research Response was associated with the claims file. Therein, a VA employee relayed that, "(w)e requested records from National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the custodian of Army unit records for 1970-1971. NARA was unable to locate records for the unit and dates veteran provided." After thorough review and consideration, the Board observes that the Veteran's medical treatment records have been associated with the claims file on a few occasions during the claim period. The Board notes that the medical records reflect that the Veteran was reported to have a history of ischemic heart disease before the claim period. The Board also notes that the records reflect that a possible diagnosis for diabetes mellitus, Type II at the beginning of the claim period. However, the record before the Board is unclear as to whether the Veteran endured ischemic heart disease and/or diabetes mellitus, Type II during the claim period. As noted above, a current disability is the first requisite element for all service connection claims. See Hickson, 12 Vet. App. at 253. Therefore, the Board concludes that a remand is warranted at this time for additional development. Consequently, the matters are REMANDED to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran, and, with his assistance, identify any outstanding records of pertinent medical treatment from VA, Federal, or private health care providers. With the Veteran's assistance obtain copies of any pertinent records and add them to the claims file. Follow the procedures for obtaining the records set forth by 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c) (2017). If VA attempts to obtain any outstanding records which are unavailable, the Veteran should be notified in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (e). 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently endured ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, Type II. The claims file should be made available to, and be reviewed by, the examiner, and it should be confirmed that such records were reviewed. The examiner should: For any current ischemic heart disease or diabetes mellitus, Type II identified, indicate whether the disability is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) related to the Veteran's U.S. Army service. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. All opinions must take into account the Veteran's own history and contentions. The examiner(s) should secure any test results necessary to confirm diagnoses for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, Type II during the claim period, January 2013 to present. 3. The AOJ must ensure that the examination report requested above is in compliance with the directives of this remand. If any report or opinion is deficient in any manner, the AOJ must implement corrective procedures at once. 4. Thereafter, the AOJ should consider all of the evidence of record and readjudicate the claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and diabetes mellitus, Type II. If the benefits sought are not granted, the AOJ must then issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) and allow the Veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board RLBJ, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.